Pregnancy out of wedlock and perception of disgrace.

SusieBlue

Some of them were just vile excuses for humans who had no business caring for children.

I posted this before but when my Aunty was 5, she had a habit of pulling the sleeves of her jumper over her hands when she was cold at school and it drove the Nun mad, one day when she caught her doing it she hopped my aunts head off the table so hard that she knocked her front tooth out. She was 5 years old.

My nana was a widow with many young children, and had to work to support them. As a result they were often sent to school when sick when really they should have been at home, but my grandmother simply had to work to put food on the table. There was no state support back then.
Anyway one day my mam was sick with a kidney infection so my Nana sent in a note explaining and asking that she please be allowed to go the bathroom as needed, as she was unwell.
The nun took absolutely no notice, refused all bathroom requests, and she ended up wetting herself at lunchtime. She was then made sit in her wet knickers for the rest of the day, humiliated. Her teacher thought it was hilarious and made a joke of it for the rest of the year.
She was only 7.

My grandmother complained of course but as a young widow she was met with threats of her children being taken from her and sent to the Good Shepherds, which I believe was some sort of industrial school for orphan children.

No one will ever convince me that those evil women didn’t know what they were doing was abusive and wrong. How anyone could do those things to innocent children just beggars belief.
If that’s the treatment that school going kids were getting, I can only imagine how horrific the care homes were for little boys and girls.

Eric Cartman

Donald Trump wrote: »

Bit of a stretch to say I'm obsessed with a term I never used - no?




Perhaps you inserting "bad boy" into your post is personal to yourself?

I don't think this local deadbeat is as common as people make them out to be but I think theres reasoning on both sides here.

Id refer to it as 'fool me once....' logic.

If a woman has sex with a man who she believes is a responsible man who would be enough of an adult to deal with the consequences of a pregnancy and then runs off then absolutely aside from the responsibility of ensuring to use contraception , that man is absolutely to blame for this.

However if a woman actively chooses to have sex with a man who is known to have fathered a child and ran out on supporting that kid, then, while he is still a deadbeat who does not deserve absolution, more the fool her for allowing the deadbeat on top of her. The fictional man alluded to running around the town fathering children all over the shop by any metric shouldn't exist. How any woman would have as little respect for herself to sleep with someone like that is beyond me.

its a case of personal responsibility these days, which were not in the past. In this post 8th repealed, contraception freely available world in which we live, there are very few excuses for an unintended birth of a child.

However there are deadbeat dads and irresponsible women who cannot behave like adults and the state will continue to bail out their poor decisions.

Sebastian Dangerfield

A couple I know were due to be married this summer. Hes around 30, shes mid 30s, and have accepted their 300 odd person wedding wont happen due to covid, so have postponed it. The hardest thing for them isnt that their dream wedding is delayed, but that they wont be able to try for a child for another year until theyre married.

Seems mental to me, I thought people stopped caring about children out of wedlock a long time ago, but clearly not.

SusieBlue

newmember? wrote: »

Where does blame get us...we're all to blame...what are we gonna do about it?

I’m not blaming anyone. I just dispute the opinion that we can’t expect men to step up to their responsibilities because it isn’t ‘realistic’ or ‘practical’ and that the woman should have known better when she consented to sex, so it’s her own fault for ending up a single mother or caring for a child alone.
I’m just saying a woman and a man are equally responsible for any children they may have, and saying some men just won’t step up for whatever reason and that there’s nothing we can do about that is a cop out.

Eric Cartman

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

A couple I know were due to be married this summer. Hes around 30, shes mid 30s, and have accepted their 300 odd person wedding wont happen due to covid, so have postponed it. The hardest thing for them isnt that their dream wedding is delayed, but that they wont be able to try for a child for another year until theyre married.

Seems mental to me, I thought people stopped caring about children out of wedlock a long time ago, but clearly not.

I can absolutely see why some people would want to wait until marriage to have kids, its absolutely not a bad preference to have. It could be down to themselves or family attitude but I know well myself I wouldn't even dare think about tryin to have a kid unless there was a ring on the finger.

o1s1n

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I can absolutely see why some people would want to wait until marriage to have kids, its absolutely not a bad preference to have. It could be down to themselves or family attitude but I know well myself I wouldn't even dare think about tryin to have a kid unless there was a ring on the finger.

It's personal preference alright but it seems a bit silly if they're currently unable to get married but want to get cracking on having kids.

Just wasting time that they could be spending with their kids now.

Sebastian Dangerfield

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I can absolutely see why some people would want to wait until marriage to have kids, its absolutely not a bad preference to have. It could be down to themselves or family attitude but I know well myself I wouldn't even dare think about tryin to have a kid unless there was a ring on the finger.

Can I ask why? I'm genuinely interested - we were married when we had kids but it wouldn't have even crossed my mind not to have been.

My mother wasn't married when she had me, and I had zero awareness of it til I needed a birth cert for something in my 20s, and my dads name wasnt on it (even though they lived together and already had a child when I was born, which in itself is probably indicative of attitudes at the time).

Donald Trump

SusieBlue wrote: »

I’m not blaming anyone. I just dispute the opinion that we can’t expect men to step up to their responsibilities because it isn’t ‘realistic’ or ‘practical’ and that the woman should have known better when she consented to sex, so it’s her own fault for ending up a single mother or caring for a child alone.
I’m just saying a woman and a man are equally responsible for any children they may have, and saying some men just won’t step up for whatever reason and that there’s nothing we can do about that is a cop out.

Well, you see, your confusion may indeed stem from the fact that nobody actually said whatever you appear to be going on about.

Donald Trump

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

Can I ask why? I'm genuinely interested - we were married when we had kids but it wouldn't have even crossed my mind not to have been.

My mother wasn't married when she had me, and I had zero awareness of it til I needed a birth cert for something in my 20s, and my dads name wasnt on it (even though they lived together and already had a child when I was born, which in itself is probably indicative of attitudes at the time).

Not saying it is applicable in your case as you are probably too old, but in more recent years there were other reasons why fathers were often not put on birth certs (even if they were fully involved when the child was born and expected to remain so)

Sebastian Dangerfield

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not saying it is applicable in your case as you are probably too old, but in more recent years there were other reasons why fathers were often not put on birth certs (even if they were fully involved when the child was born and expected to remain so)

Could you give examples? Im late 30s, if that clarifies. Ive no idea why he isnt on it, just assumed it was being out of wedlock.

eviltwin

Donald Trump wrote: »

Not saying it is applicable in your case as you are probably too old, but in more recent years there were other reasons why fathers were often not put on birth certs (even if they were fully involved when the child was born and expected to remain so)

There was a long standing myth that a women who put her partners name on the birth very couldn’t get lone parents which put a lot of people off. No truth to it of course.

There was also the rule that the father couldn’t go on the cert unless he attended the registration in person, a stipulation that didn’t apply to married couples. It’s no longer the case but both parents still need to provide ID and information, not much you can do if a father doesn’t want to be part of that.

Donald Trump

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

Could you give examples? Im late 30s, if that clarifies. Ive no idea why he isnt on it, just assumed it was being out of wedlock.

I'm sure I will be corrected if wrong. I am not saying anything specific to yourself of course but one reason might be worry about social welfare payments or benefits that the mother might receive. The father could have been worried that he might be chased for it by the SW or that if he is officially around that she might not get them.



I think that, in theory, the SW can chase a father up for not paying. If the father and mother are living together, then I think she is not entitled to single mother's payment for example. Because the assumption is that he is not contributing so she needs help. Then, in theory, the SW chase the father up for this money. But if he is not named then they can't chase him up.



Perhaps being designated as a single mother might also bump a girl up the list for housing.



One other reason, although not as applicable in Ireland because there are not so many here, is that mother might not want the father's name on the birth cert in order to deny him whatever rights he might have as a father. For example, technically the father would have to consent to the child being brought outside the country.

Edit to add:
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/one_parent_family_payment.html

If you were not married to the parent of your child/children you do not need to seek maintenance from the other parent when you first claim OFP. However, you must make efforts to seek maintenance from the other parent to continue to be eligible for OFP.

[...]

All income from maintenance is assessed as means. This includes maintenance for you and maintenance to you for any of your children. If you are getting maintenance from more than one person, all the payments are added together and the total is assessed as means. However, only half of your income from maintenance will be deducted from your OFP.

[...]
The Maintenance Recovery Unit of the Department of Social Protection will contact the liable relative if they have not paid enough maintenance

By not having a father named, the mother cannot be forced to seek official maintenance. And the SW cannot chase the father for it either. If he does hand over money, it can then be done as "cash" and not affect the rate of the single parent allowance paid to the mother

eviltwin

It’s worth remembering that the reasons the rules around registration of unmarried births was because the powers that be wanted to protect themselves and their pals from being exposed as the father to children conceived through extra marital affairs.

newmember2

eviltwin wrote: »

It’s worth remembering that the reasons the rules around registration of unmarried births was because the powers that be wanted to protect themselves and their pals from being exposed as the father to children conceived through extra marital affairs.

Indeed one way to get fathers to take some sort of responsibility would be to have their name automatically entered on the birth cert, although I'm not sure how disputed cases would be handled.

Donald Trump

eviltwin wrote: »

It’s worth remembering that the reasons the rules around registration of unmarried births was because the powers that be wanted to protect themselves and their pals from being exposed as the father to children conceived through extra marital affairs.

Well even if the name isn't on the birth cert, you know the girl could still tell people? It would hardly be a fool proof mechanism to guarantee secrecy now would it.



A birth cert is a legal document. If you are on the birth cert then you are automatically, unless, presumably, you get a court to prove otherwise, legally the father even if you are not the biological father.
Perhaps if I was a single mother who just gave birth to a baby and I didn't want to put down the real fathers name, sure I might as well bang down Elon Musk as the daddy without him ever knowing........cha-ching time when oul' Elon kicks the bucket and his inheritance is about to be divided.

eviltwin

Donald Trump wrote: »

Well even if the name isn't on the birth cert, you know the girl could still tell people? It would hardly be a fool proof mechanism to guarantee secrecy now would it.



A birth cert is a legal document. If you are on the birth cert then you are automatically, unless, presumably, you get a court to prove otherwise, legally the father even if you are not the biological father.
Perhaps if I was a single mother who just gave birth to a baby and I didn't want to put down the real fathers name, sure I might as well bang down Elon Musk as the daddy without him ever knowing........cha-ching time when oul' Elon kicks the bucket and his inheritance is about to be divided.

Unless you can prove it it’s just hearsay. There were no paternity tests back then.

Donald Trump

eviltwin wrote: »

Unless you can prove it it’s just hearsay. There were no paternity tests back then.

But that is the point. The document was a legal instrument of fact. If you were allowed to put down whatever sure then it would have no use as a document because people could be arbitrarily taking the piss

So there would have to be rules on who you could and could not put down on it without their consent.

eviltwin

Donald Trump wrote: »

But that is the point. The document was a legal instrument of fact. If you were allowed to put down whatever sure then it would have no use as a document because people could be arbitrarily taking the piss

So there would have to be rules on who you could and could not put down on it without their consent.

But the unmarried father has to be there at registration. Or did. It’s changed now but it was still in place when my daughter was born in 96, if the dad didn’t attend the registration then the fathers name was blank. You couldn’t just name anyone as father, he had to verify it. Still does by supplying documentation. There’s nothing a woman can do if the father refuses to be involved in the process.

Donald Trump

eviltwin wrote: »

But the unmarried father has to be there at registration. Or did. It’s changed now but it was still in place when my daughter was born in 96, if the dad didn’t attend the registration then the fathers name was blank. You couldn’t just name anyone as father, he had to verify it. Still does by supplying documentation. There’s nothing a woman can do if the father refuses to be involved in the process.

I didn't say otherwise.


You appeared to imply that the reason that that rule was in place so that the married men who made up the rules could hide the secret children they were fathering



I am simply explaining an alternative, logical and non-conspiracy, reason why that rule might have been in place.

mrslancaster

Donald Trump wrote: »

I didn't say otherwise.


You appeared to imply that the reason that that rule was in place so that the married men who made up the rules could hide the secret children they were fathering



I am simply explaining an alternative, logical and non-conspiracy, reason why that rule might have been in place.

My aunt told me the maternity hospital used to register the births in the 60's. A nurse came around to the ward and took all the details, filled in the form. If the mother gave a fathers name then, how did he prevent it?

votecounts

We really were a backward country, still are in many ways, tend to forget this was going on until recently

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

I believe it. In 1996 when I was pregnant I came home one day to find two people from some crisis pregnancy agency in my front room. What followed was an intense badgering trying to convince me to give my baby up for adoption. I still have no idea who they were but I know they were suggested to my mother by a priest. I refused of course and was told either I agreed or I left so I left. I still haven’t spoken to my mother not even at my own father’s funeral where she ignored me, my partner and daughter. I brought so much shame on her she never forgave me. Attitudes like those in the old days did exist long after we like to think they were consigned to history.

I'm sorry that happened to you. Similar happened to me too with a particular catholic "crisis pregnancy" group. Same year, 1996. They pestered me for months trying to convince me to have the baby adopted and get me to move into some kind of single mothers' accommodation where they would arrange for my baby to go to a "good family".

In my case, I told them where to go, but I was lucky that I had the full support of my own family.

mrslancaster

mrslancaster wrote: »

My aunt told me the maternity hospital used to register the births in the 60's. A nurse came around to the ward and took all the details, filled in the form. If the mother gave a fathers name then, how did he prevent it?

Hospitals may have completed the forms but the registration and issuing of a birth certificate still had to be completed by the General Registrar Office. They could cross check against marriage records (marital status would have been part of the form too). No marriage would mean no father's name recorded on birth cert.

saabsaab

Deleted User wrote: »

Hospitals may have completed the forms but the registration and issuing of a birth certificate still had to be completed by the General Registrar Office. They could cross check against marriage records (marital status would have been part of the form too). No marriage would mean no father's name recorded on birth cert.

Pre computer age would that have been done in most cases?

Daisy78

sabat wrote: »

I'm going to call bollocks on this anecdote.

I wouldn’t doubt it. A friend of mine had her baby in the early nineties, no question that she would keep it, had the support of her parents. She knew of a girl who lived nearby, same situation but she was packed off to a mother and baby home. My friend said she only realised then that they still existed and how lucky she was.

newmember2

Daisy78 wrote: »

I wouldn’t doubt it. A friend of mine had her baby in the early nineties, no question that she would keep it, had the support of her parents. She knew of a girl who lived nearby, same situation but she was packed off to a mother and baby home. My friend said she only realised then that they still existed and how lucky she was.

The opposing argument would say her baby was not so lucky.

notsoyoungwan

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

My mother wasn't married when she had me, and I had zero awareness of it til I needed a birth cert for something in my 20s, and my dads name wasnt on it (even though they lived together and already had a child when I was born, which in itself is probably indicative of attitudes at the time).

Eh? How on earth did you get to your 20s without knowing more about your parents relationship? Like, I know when, where and how my parents met, I know when they got engaged and when they got married. It’s just part of the family narrative. Given that your parents were together long enough to have two children and be living together, it was obviously a very significant relationship. Would natural curiosity not have meant you’d have a curiosity about it?

Not getting in a dig here, I’m just a bit taken aback that you’d not know that kind of info.

Sebastian Dangerfield

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

Eh? How on earth did you get to your 20s without knowing more about your parents relationship? Like, I know when, where and how my parents met, I know when they got engaged and when they got married. It’s just part of the family narrative. Given that your parents were together long enough to have two children and be living together, it was obviously a very significant relationship. Would natural curiosity not have meant you’d have a curiosity about it?

Not getting in a dig here, I’m just a bit taken aback that you’d not know that kind of info.

They seperated when i was small and my dad moved to another country. There are no romantic tales of how they met shared across the dinner table, they barely speak.

But that aside, I knew everything I needed / wanted to know, just not the technicality of why only one name appeared on my birth cert, because Id never looked at it with any great interest.

notsoyoungwan

^fair enough, thanks for clarifying.

Scouseouse

They could get married, even in in these covid times. but skip or postpone the big 300 guest do - the presence of so many witnesses not being necessary for a valid religious or civil marriage.